Presuming that a Universe was different at different times is tantamount to claiming that it followed different rules or laws in those times.

Not at all. It would simply mean that the conditions were different, not that the laws of nature were different.

Scott Mayers - 22 July 2013 10:15 AM

this clearly shows that Einstein created his theory with abolishing the aether in mind (what Michelson-Morley concluded)!

Einstein wanted to remove the apparent inconsistencies between Maxwell and Newton. That means also to get rid of the ether along the way. How do you explain then Einstein’s own remark that the Michelson-Morley experiment was not significant for his work? Einstein doesn’t even directly refer to the Michelson-Morley in his original article. These sentences are the closest you can get:

Examples of this sort, together with the unsuccessful attempts to discover any motion of the earth relatively to the “light medium,” suggest that the phenomena of electrodynamics as well as of mechanics possess no properties corresponding to the idea of absolute rest.
(...)
The introduction of a “luminiferous ether” will prove to be superfluous inasmuch as the view here to be developed will not require an “absolutely stationary space” provided with special properties, (...)

In no way he presents the Michelson-Morley experiment as his main motivation for designing his theory. For Einstein it was just one of the symptoms of a deeper lying wrong understanding of space and time, which in practice meant a correction on Newton’s mechanics.

Scott Mayers - 22 July 2013 10:15 AM

And sorry if this sounds too arrogant for you, but I know that I can eventually prove that I’m right.

Michelson-Morley, boy it been years ago I read about that experiment. If I remember correctly that they were trying to measure the ether winds. That they regarded the experiment failed because they did not believe the results. And the results really proved that ether winds did not exist, the experiment worked fine.

Michelson-Morley brings up the question of the measurement of light. Think of it like a universal rheostat that controls the speed of light and the speed of time. Therefore if you increase the speed of light the time is also increased.

Point being, that light measured by time in the same magnetic field will always seem constant.

Light measured outside (different field) that magnetic field will show a different time. Now what I understand the general concept is that the time speed changes and the light speed does not. I think that is wrong. I think they both change.

This has no proof or science backup, just my coffee shop thoughts of how I think it may work.

This explains to me how a guy could leave earth and come back much younger than if he would have stayed on earth. And the GPS getting a little change in the universal magnetic field would have to adjust for time used on earth.

Most of Einstein theories are way over my head, but I do have my layman’s conceptions and ideas. You’ll have to tell me if I am close or completely opposite of your thoughts.
Mike

I quoted you above here because this factor is also changed. Gravity is NOT a ‘field’ of attraction. It is a shadowing effect that curved lines which form matter relative to other matter; the ‘force’ is actually the expansion of space, which in effect is identical to what is termed the Casimer Effect. [I will expand on this later]

Gravity expressed as a gravitational field whereby it is a “pseudo force” is just as strange as Newton’s “action at a distance”.

Your concept of gravity as the ‘force’ which is actually the expansion of space but which in effect is identical to the Casimir Effect is intriguing. Please explain further.

My theory explains this easily. What we are observing extremely high energy frequency waves from so far that they have stretched down from the high gamma radiation spectrum into the light spectrum. Because of its distance, it should also be more intense as the expansion would also increase the amplitude of the waves. This is one of the presumptions that make relativity invalid. Rather than assuming that the maximum speed of anything is that of light, the assumption should be that everything approaches one velocity such that if you were to stretch any electromagnetic wave until it is a perfectly straight line (infinite frequency), that is the true speed, c! The wave formula that relates emf to c is not correct. It appears correct on a relatively short range of frequencies, like light. The formula should actually relate the real length of the waveform, not its displacement.

How does your theory explain why there is no difference in time for the light to reach the earth from more distant or closer quasars?

That implies time dilation is not a property of the universe and/or the speed of light is not a constant.

Quasars are extremely luminous and were first identified as being high redshift sources of electromagnetic energy, including radio waves and visible light, that were point-like, similar to stars, rather than extended sources similar to galaxies.

Quasars emit a spectrum of electromagnetic energy from radio waves to visible light and all these emissions travel to earth at the speed of light, c. There is no reason to think c will vary at all irrespective of the frequency of emission.

The Perfect Cosmological Principle is the appropriate assumption. Then it’s not queer anymore. They chose to prefer that the Universe evolved because they couldn’t explain why the apparent Universal expansion suggests only 14.8 billion years, which doesn’t make sense with a solar system that is a third of that, not to mention that the heavier material required to make the earth requires the minimum of another star’s prior existence of at least another third of that time.
The assumption that the non-Perfect Cosmological Principle is true is a good example of a step out of logic and rationality. Presuming that a Universe was different at different times is tantamount to claiming that it followed different rules or laws in those times. This demonstrates how the contemporary mindset stepped out of empiricism because the we cannot determine the difference of a universe outside our physical constraints. [I’m already anticipating the responses to this. But I’ll wait until they’re stated.]

What is the Perfect Cosmological Principle and how does that explain the discovery of a LQG?

We show that Michelson and Morley used an over simplified description and failed to notice that their calculation is not compatible with their own hypothesis that light is traveling at a constant velocity in all frames. During the last century, the Michelson-Morley equations have been used without realizing that two essential fundamental phenomena are missing in the Michelson-Morley demonstration. We show that the velocity of the mirror must be taken into account to calculate the angle of reflection of light. Using the Huygens principle, we see that the angle of reflection of light on a moving mirror is a function of the velocity of the mirror. This has been ignored in the Michelson-Morley calculation. Also, due to the transverse direction of the moving frame,light does not enter in the instrument at 90 degrees as assumed in the Michelson-Morley experiment.

Analysis of the New Results:

Therefore, according to classical physics, the rotation of the Michelson-Morley apparatus in space should never show any drift of interference lines. On the contrary, a positive shift of interference fringes with the amplitude compatible with the Michelson-Morley predictions is required in order to be compatible with Einstein’s relativity. Such a shift of interference fringes due to a rotation has never been observed. The absence of an observed drift of interference fringes invalidates Einstein’s relativity.
We have seen above that the prediction presented by Michelson and Morley are based on a model which ignores two important fundamental phenomena. These disregarded phenomena are the law of reflection of light on the moving mirror and also the deviation of the observed direction of light coming from a moving system.

No aether:

It is also important to mention that the non-zero result observed in the Michelson-Morley experiment does not provide any proof of existence of ether. The presence of ether appears totally useless, when an appropriate model is used. Without matter nor radiation, space is nothing. Other experiments(12-17) have already shown that everything in physics can be explained using classical physics without the ether hypothesis.

What you’re ignorant of is that the resulting claimed by Einstein, that since it is impossible to MEASURE events simultaneously, that in reality, that lack of such capability assures that the reality itself doesn’t exist. This is solipsistic.

Oh my dear. To conclude from ‘there is no fixed frame of reference for measurements’ to ‘reality does not exist’ is so wrong. It shows your utter misunderstanding what relativity is about. Relativity just gives the formulas how coordinate systems must be translated in each other, dependent on the relative motion of coordinate systems and the influence of gravitation. Two real events are just as real in any inertial system. But to translate coordinates, and geometrical and temporal distances, we must take movement and gravitation in account. E.g. in SR the Galilean transformations do not suffice, because it would lead to the conclusion that the laws of nature (especially the Maxwell laws of electricity) are different for observers in different inertial frames. Therefore the Galilean transformations had to be replaced by the Lorenz transformations. Einstein later regretted he named his theory ‘relativity theory’ because of all the misunderstandings. He thought it had been better to call it ‘invariance theory’ because of those quantities that do not change under Lorenz transformations.

Scott Mayers - 22 July 2013 02:40 PM

The conclusion that waves travel through a sincere ‘nothingness’ with the mere explanation that the waves are transverse, doesn’t solve anything.

What has the transversal character of em-waves to do with the non-existence of the ether??? Again: all of relativity follows from the requirement that the laws of nature are the same for all observers in all inertial frames. To give another example of the power of SR: Dirac predicted the existence of anti-electrons by applying special relativity on the electromagnetic theory of the electron.

Scott Mayers - 22 July 2013 02:40 PM

If you say light only goes one speed, in reference to what if that ‘what’ doesn’t mean anything?

The speed of light is the same for every observer, whatever way it is moving in respect to any other observer. That’s it. That is counterintuitive, and from there follow counterintuitive conclusions. But their truths are confirmed in many, many experiments, and daily business for particle physicists.

Scott Mayers - 22 July 2013 02:40 PM

For this reason I am beginning to think that the choice to keep this insane reasoning is politically driven rather than serious.

Now you are close to conspiracy theory… Does your navigation device work or not? Do you believe people lie to you when they say that formulas of SR and GR are needed to have your position exact?

Scott Mayers - 22 July 2013 02:40 PM

And by the way, how are you so certain that I, let alone anyone, can disprove Einstein? Aren’t you being two-faced in assuming that no evidence can possibly be put forward to disprove Einstein and the empirical presumption that a theory must be able to be falsified to qualify as a scientific theory?

Ah! Great point! Of course! We already know that at least that one of both: QM and relativity, cannot be the complete story, because they are not consistent under some extreme circumstances as occur with black holes and the first fraction of a second of the big bang. But that does not invalidate all the empirical evidence we have of relativity under more daily circumstances. Even that we know Newtonian mechanics is formally overrun by relativity, we still use it for calculating orbits of spacecraft, paths of cannon balls and building bridges. A future theory will have present QM and relativity as border cases where gravity is not that strong.

It also supposes, as Scott did, that SR is meant as a reaction on the failed measurement of the the movement of the earth in the non-moving ether. This was just a minor point however.

The true story is that Lorenz gave his Lorenz transformations as ad-hoc explanation for several problems concerning the theory of the electron and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein’s contribution was that he was able to derive the Lorenz transformation based on only one principle: the requirement that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move with constant speed relative to each other. In his original article he formulated two principles:

1) The laws by which the states of physical systems undergo change are not affected, whether these changes of state be referred to the one or the other of two systems of co-ordinates in uniform translatory motion.
2) Any ray of light moves in the “stationary” system of co-ordinates with the determined velocity c, whether the ray be emitted by a stationary or by a moving body.

2) is more or less superfluous to mention, because it follows from 1): according to the Maxwell equations the velocity of light is:

As u0 and e0 are natural constants, it follows that the velocity of light is a constant too. If it wasn’t then electric and magnetic forces would depend on the velocity of the observer, which is not according to 1).

The true story is that Lorenz gave his Lorenz transformations as ad-hoc explanation for several problems concerning the theory of the electron and the Michelson-Morley experiment. Einstein’s contribution was that he was able to derive the Lorenz transformation based on only one principle: the requirement that the laws of nature are the same for all observers that move with constant speed relative to each other.

We will see that in the moving frame, using the moving units, the Lorentz equations do not give a constant one-way velocity of light in the moving frame. In fact, the Lorentz transformations predicts only the transformation that gives an “average” velocity of light equal to c, which means that the velocity of light is slower in the forward direction and faster in the backward direction, in the moving frame, just as illustrated in equation 17. This is certainly not compatible with the hypothesis of a constant velocity of light.

How moving clocks show a different clock rate:

The fact that the one-way velocity of light equal to c is only apparent, has been explained (5, 6, 7) previously. This illusion is due to a phenomenon involving the increase of kinetic energy needed to carry (the atoms of) the clock from the rest frame to the moving frame. Using quantum mechanics, it has been shown (5, 6, 7) that using the principle of mass-energy conservation, the increase of velocity (kinetic energy) produces a change of energy (quantum levels) to the electrons in atoms, which is responsible for a shift of quantum levels of all atoms in the moving frame. That shift of quantum levels (5, 6, 7) makes the moving clocks run at a different rate

Conclusion:

We must conclude that there is no need of any weird interpretation requiring non-realistic physics and the denial of conventional logic. There is no need of space contraction, or time dilation. The size of matter changes, due to the change of Bohr radius, that also makes clocks run at a different rate. Everything can be explained naturally using conventional logic, mass-energy conservation, and the equations of quantum mechanics.

Without the speed of light as a constant, weird space contraction or time dilation, we can explain this anomaly from my post 29:

If these quasars were like the previously observed supernovae, an observer would expect to see longer, “stretched” timescales for the distant, “stretched” high-redshift quasars. But even though the distant quasars were more strongly redshifted than the closer quasars, there was no difference in the time it took the light to reach Earth.

Time is a constant, hence no time dilation. The light from the distant quasars exceeded the speed of light from the closer quasars because the speed of light is not a constant.

How would you, GdB explain this anomaly?

If time is a constant, we can consider simultaneous events in all frames of reference. Newton was correct and Einstein was wrong.

That is a fringe science article of the same author. Fact is that the constancy of the speed of light is used to derive the Lorenz transformations, so when the author’s outcome is that it is not, that is really weird. See here for several derivations of the Lorenz transformations.

Please note for yourself and others who keep on, would you stop presuming that I have denied the results of experiment (MANY) that support Einstein’s theory.

That means your ‘theory’ is empirically equivalent to SR. What then is the basis of saying ‘Einstein was wrong’? In what do your extra dimensions differ from your invisible demons?

Again: the ‘math’ is derived from only this requirement: that the laws of nature are the same for all inertial frames. It was Einstein’s accomplishment to derive the Lorenz transformations based on this simple single principle, without reference to other ad-hoc hypotheses (just to mention: in Einstein’s days the time was ripe for SR. Lorenz, Fitzgerald, Poincaré were close to it, however could not, in their thoughts, get rid of the idea of some preferred fixed frame of reference).

Scott Mayers - 23 July 2013 11:45 PM

If Einstein’s theory were to hold true to his hypotheses, then the physics at any inertial reference could not be altered such that if they were to go from zero to close to or at the speed of light, they must be able to return in the same functional capacity. We know this isn’t true. For example, if you could speed up to c, or close to, the object at that speed will alter in such a way as to prevent itself from being returned to its original form when it slows down. At least, for instance, cosmic radiation would destroy such an observer at this velocity. Thus, the phyics at that relative velocity are not the same.

Likewise, should you freeze something relative to some relative vantage point, that frozen object could not physically come back to its same form upon a thaw. As a simple example, when water freezes, it crystallizes at 3 degrees celsius and so and observing object, like a human, not only would be destroyed upon slowing down to such a relative inertial frame, it cannot be returned to its same form, that is, alive.

Nothing of the above makes any sense.

Scott Mayers - 23 July 2013 11:45 PM

Because there distance is so great, with the expansion of space and the waves as I have described, the waves get stretched in all directions, not just the vector or average direction. Therefore, the waves would have larger amplitudes as they travel through space.

Larger amplitude means more photons, that means you are saying the energy of the light increases on the way from the quasars to us. Where should that additional energy, these additional photons, come from?

Scott Mayers - 23 July 2013 11:45 PM

Since the frequence shift has decreased so significantly, light, as defined from the source, would become so slow as to either not be detected or scattered.